creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Walter Williams
Walter E. Williams
19 Nov 2014
Obama vs. Us

Suppose you saw a person driving his car on the wrong side of a highway, against the traffic. Would you call … Read More.

12 Nov 2014
Educational Fraud

It would be unreasonable to expect a student with the reading, writing and computing abilities of an eighth-… Read More.

5 Nov 2014
Scholar-Athlete Charade

Last year's column "Dishonest Educators" (1/9/2013) reported on the largest school cheating scandal in U.S. history.… Read More.

Devious Taxation

Comment

The Washington, D.C.-based Tax Foundation does a yeoman's job of keeping track of how much we're paying in taxes and who's paying what. It turns out that American taxpayers worked this year from Jan. 1 to April 17, 107 days, to earn enough money to pay their federal, state and local tax bills. That statistic requires some clarification, and I ask my readers to help me examine it.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, Congress will spend $3.8 trillion this year, about 24 percent of our $15 trillion gross domestic product. But federal tax revenue will be much less, only $2.5 trillion, or 16 percent of the GDP. That means there's a shortfall of $1.3 trillion. Some people, including economists, say there's a deficit. That's true, but only in an accounting sense, not in any meaningful economic sense. Let's look at it.

If Congress spends $3.8 trillion out of this year's $15 trillion GDP, what must it do to accomplish that goal? If you said it must "find a way to force us not to spend $3.8 trillion privately," go to the head of the class. One way to force us to spend $3.8 trillion less is to tax us that amount, but we're being taxed only $2.5 trillion. Where does the extra $1.3 trillion come from? It surely doesn't come from the tooth fairy, Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.

The fact of business is that if Congress spends $3.8 trillion of what we produce this year, it necessarily must force us to spend $3.8 trillion less privately this year. The most honest way to force us to do that is through taxation. Another way is to enter the bond market and make interest rates higher than they otherwise would be, thereby forcing us to spend less on private investment in homes and businesses. Then there is debasement of the currency through inflation, which is taxation by stealth.

A common but misleading argument is that future generations of Americans will pay for today's spending.

Think about it. Is it possible for someone who has yet to be born to pick up the tab for what we do today? Pose the question another way. When we fought World War II, were the resources used and the sacrifices made to fight the war produced between 1941 and 1945, or were they produced and sacrificed in 1980, 1990 or 2000? Subsequent generations benefited from our fighting the war by being born into a free nation. Congresses profligate spending will burden future generations through making them heirs to less capital and, hence, less wealth.

The bottom line is that whatever Congress consumes this year is produced this year, not in 2020, 2030 or 2040. That means, in the real economic sense, the federal budget is always balanced.

Instead of focusing on how the federal government has grown from 3 or 4 percent of our GDP — as it was from 1787 to 1920 — to today's 24 percent, our attention has been diverted to tax fairness demagoguery. Let's look at tax fairness. According to Internal Revenue Service data for 2009, available at http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html, the top 1 percent of American income earners paid almost 37 percent of federal income taxes. The top 10 percent paid about 70 percent of federal income taxes, and the top 50 percent paid nearly 98 percent. Roughly 47 percent of Americans pay no federal income tax. Here's my fairness question to you: What standard of fairness dictates that the top 10 percent of income earners pay 70 percent of the income tax burden while 47 percent of Americans pay nothing?

The fact that the income tax burden is distributed so unevenly produces great politically borne fiscal problems. People who pay little or no income taxes become natural constituents for big-spending politicians. After all, if you pay no income taxes, what do you care if income taxes are raised? Also, you won't be enthusiastic about tax cuts; you'll see them as a threat to your handouts.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM



Comments

27 Comments | Post Comment
I look at it this way. It's the kids of the people who pay little or no income taxes who are dying every day in the wars started by those who pay the highest amt of taxes. Our kids fight your battles, you should pay more in taxes.

The wealthy not only own most of the country, they reap the most benefit. Not only is labor cheap, life is cheap. Both are squandered by the wealthy.



Business owners, who make up a large percentage of the richest households in America, increase their own incomes to the extent that they can drive down the wages they pay their employees. In this way a higher share of national income is enjoyed by a smaller proportoin of society. The minimum wage was kept low for years, and will be once again as workers have less bargaining power as fewer workers than ever are members of labor unions; this has allowed business owners to pay lower wages over time, concentrating an increasing share of national income in business profits, and less and less in wages for workers.

There is also reduced support for the provision of public goods: When examining living standards, more than just income must be considered, but also access to education, provision of health care and other public goods such as public safety and security.


Richer households are less interested in things like public schools and social welfare programs, as they do not rely on these for their own well-being. Therefore, the richer the top 10% become, the greater their incentive to work against efforts to fund public education, public health and public safety. The underprovision of these social welfare enhancing goods by govenrment further widens the gap between the living standards of the richest and the middle class. Economist Robert Reich refers to this phenomenon as “the secession of the successful”.

Results of a study by the Political Economy Research Institute of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, found that the higher the percentage of income earned by the top 10%, the incomes of those in the middle and bottom of the income distribution actually decreases. Not just the percentage of total income, but the actual incomes of these groups falls as the rich get richer.


The popular belief is that reducing taxes on the rich increases the amount of investment in the economy, creating more jobs and helping increase incomes of the middle and lower income households. This theory is sometimes referred to as “trickle down” economics, as the increased incomes and wealth at the top will “trickle down” and raise the incomes of the rest of society as well.
However, actual data shows that a 10% increase in the share of total income earned by the top 10% of income earners leads to a 2% decline in the incomes of households in the middle of the income distribution (based on data for the period between 1979 and 2005).
It's not just that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, but the rich getting richer makes the poor (and the middle income earners) poorer. This is a breakthrough discovery.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Steve
Mon Apr 23, 2012 8:05 AM
Steve. There are a few holes in your thinking. You state "Richer households are less interested in things like public schools and social welfare programs, as they do not rely on these for their own well-being. Therefore, the richer the top 10% become, the greater their incentive to work against efforts to fund public education, public health and public safety" and yet these are the tax payers who are paying 70% of the burden to sustain these programs. Those who use and rely on these programs more than likely pay no taxes. Based on this it is in everyone's best interest if the rich get richer. That way they can pay for the 47% of us who pay nothing.

My other observation is that there may be no direct correlation of increases of income by top earners to decrease in the middle class. Perhaps the decline in middle class income can be attributed to the shift from higher paying manufacturing or white collar jobs to lower paying service industry work. Perhaps competition with cheaper global labor markets is naturally lowering incomes

Your assertion that the rich reap more benefit from the country also makes little sense. Since the rich are paying far more for the equal rights we all share and are not elligible or don't require the entitlements those taxes pay for.


Regardless Mr. Williams basic question was how does 10% of the population paying 70% of Federal income tax equate to fairness? That is something you did not answer.
Comment: #2
Posted by: david
Mon Apr 23, 2012 8:38 AM
The rich should pay more taxes, because the rich get more from the government.

Consider defense, for example, which makes up 20% of the budget. Defending the country benefits everyone; but it benefits the rich more, because they have more to defend. It's the same principle as insurance: if you have a bigger house or a fancier car, you pay more to insure it.

Social security payments, which make up another 20% of the budget, are dependent on income-- if you've put more into the system, you get higher payments when you retire.
Investments in the nation's infrastructure-- transportation, education, research & development, energy, police subsidies, the courts, etc.-- again are more useful the more you have.

The interstates and airports benefit interstate commerce and people who can travel, not ghetto dwellers. Energy is used disproportionately by the rich and by industry.

As for public education, the better public schools are the ones attended by the moderately well off. The very well off ship their offspring off to private schools; but it is their companies that benefit from a well-educated public. (If you don't think that's a benefit, go start up an engineering firm, or even a factory, in El Salvador. Or Watts.

The FDIC and the S&L bailout obviously most benefit investors and large depositors. A neat example: a smooth operator bought a failing S&L for $350 million, then received $2 billion from the government to help resurrect it.

Beyond all this, the federal budget is top-heavy with corporate welfare. Counting tax breaks and expenditures, corporations and the rich snuffle up over $400 billion a year-- compare that to the $1400 budget, or the $116 billion spent on programs for the poor.

Where's all that money go? There's direct subsidies to agribusiness ($18 billion a year), to export companies, to maritime shippers, and to various industries-- airlines, nuclear power companies, timber companies, mining companies, automakers, drug companies. There's billions of dollars in military waste and fraud. And there's untold billions in tax credits, deductions, and loopholes.

Acelerated depreciation alone, for instance, is estimated to cost the Treasury $37 billion a year-- billions more than the mortgage interest deduction. Which itself benefits the people with the biggest mortgages. But we should encourage home ownership, shouldn't we?

How about social spending? Well, putting aside the merely religious consideration that the richest nation on the planet can well afford to lob a few $$ at the hungry, I'd argue that it's social spending-- the New Deal-- that's kept this country capitalistic. Tempting as it is for the rich to take all the wealth of a country, it's really not wise to leave the poor with no stake in the system, and every reason to agitate for imposing a new system of their own. Think of social spending as insurance against violent revolution-- and again, like any insurance, it's of most benefit to those with the biggest boodle.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Steve
Mon Apr 23, 2012 9:21 AM
You can't exactly make the poor pay more taxes-- they don't have the money. That leaves only one way to flatten the tax rates-- that is, reduce the taxes the rich pay: soak the middle class. If tax rates go down on the rich, and we're not cutting total taxes, the middle classes have to pay more.

The Republicans and conservatives and others want the government, already pretty much a subsidiary of the large corporations, to be subsidized even more by the rest of us. About all I can say is, if the American people are stupid enough to swallow this, they deserve to pay for it.

This is pretty shameless, but it's much of a piece with Republican practice in general. For years some nosy folks (such as Sen. Moynihan) have been investigating what states pay the most to the federal government, and which states get the most benefits back. What a surprise: the biggest winners are the western and southern states that vote Republican; the biggest losers are the northeastern states that vote Democratic. Those who whine the most about taxes are those who suck the most from the public trough.

They won't be happy, I suppose, until they can reconstitute a truly medieval system, in which the nobles pay no taxes at all.
Comment: #4
Posted by: Steve
Mon Apr 23, 2012 9:27 AM
Just for fun all you 10 percenters:
Answer with a rebuttal justifying the corporate subsidy of your choice, respecting the conservative principle that the tax system cannot be used for social engineering.
Write something for your kids to use in Sunday school, explaining why Jesus should have condemned the sheep who demeaned the poor by feeding and clothing them, and blessed the rich man for living in splendor while Lazarus suffered.
Take your favorite flat tax proposal and your last 1040, and have your acountant calculate how much money it will save you. Find the names of the five or six middle-class people who will have to make up that shortfall, and write them a nice thank-you note.
Compare the GNP with the rate of taxation over the last fifty years-- e.g. the boom years of the '50s with their 90% marginal tax rate-- and practice explaining that high tax rates discourage investment until you can do it with a straight face.
Comment: #5
Posted by: Steve
Mon Apr 23, 2012 9:33 AM
Well there you have it. 2 sides of the story from commentors and I can pick out a dozen reasons for smaller government in both of them. Libertarians rules.
Comment: #6
Posted by: Chris McCoy
Mon Apr 23, 2012 10:58 AM
Re: Steve

"You can't exactly make the poor pay more taxes-- they don't have the money."

Regardless of the accuracy of this statement, it doesn't address the question, which was what gives 47% of the population the right to expect the other 53% to give them money, simply as a condition of their existence? Contrary to what a significant portion of today's public school graduates believe, "From each according to his ability; to each according to his needs" is not a quote from the US Constitution.

"That leaves only one way to flatten the tax rates-- that is, reduce the taxes the rich pay: soak the middle class. If tax rates go down on the rich, and we're not cutting total taxes, the middle classes have to pay more."

But that's not what's happened. First off, nobody's talking about "cutting" anyone's taxes, and it's getting really tiresome to hear that line. Marginal tax rates were lowered 10 years ago. Democrats are trying to RAISE taxes. Of course, that doesn't work well as a campaign slogan, so of course they have to lie about it.

And EVERYONE's tax rates were lowered, not just those of "the rich."

Finally, your math is faulty. Even if it were true that "the rich" were going to pay less, that doesn't necessarily require the middle class to pay more. While it would never occur to you (or Congressional Democrats), there's actually the possibility of spending less. The other alternative, which is what will actually happen, is that they'll just continue to increase the deficit and blame Bush for it.
Comment: #7
Posted by: Jeff Gunn
Mon Apr 23, 2012 10:17 PM
Mr. Gunn. My math is not faulty. Neither are my statements. If anything is faulty it is the conclusions you draw.
This country, ready to fight each other over their Christian values and abortion, yet place no value nor respects the dignity of the poor among us. Known otherwise to you as the 47%. This entire conversation is ludicrous. To throw and waste money in every other direction, yet the direction where money may benefit all people, not just the poor but all people is an argument started by the rich after the New Deal and now carried by every voice. Talk about trickle down economics. You would scream bloody hell if they attempted to take away your guns or the "charity" funding status of the NRA and marvel that others would protest cutting funding to the most needy among us.
I suppose if the poor could afford lobbyists such as the ILA, the lobbying org. of the NRA which is known as the most powerful lobbying organization in the country, then they'd have equal representation and a voice in policy decisions that directly affect their interests.
Any research on economics will show the rich have reaped huge benefits from the Reagan years and the Bush/Cheney years while the poor have been marginalized and ostracized, now relegated to sub-human status known as the 47% or "drain on our economy".
I will also state again, if you love the fetus, you can try, but you can't shun the child. When people are not allowed choices regarding contraception and abortion and morning after pills, many unwanted children are born to many economically disenfranchised women and families. The big secret is many unwanted children are also born and aborted to those in more economically favorable circumstances.
The "abstinence" and "personal responsibility" arguments have no merit. We are sexual beings. Abstinence only works for those with diminished sex drive. All economic levels fail in abstinence and personal responsibility. It's an argument tossed at the poor from those financially secure who also act irresponsibly and immorally, but feel their economic status allows them to demean the poor and economically deprived who dare have children or expect to be treated with the same dignity and consideration you'd give to anyone. We all bow before the monied among us, the poor we kick to the curb. Just because you can doesn't mean you should applies to rich and poor.
As long as they remain poor they are relegated to the back of the bus or the back door. They seem to know and accept that, but to make another feel shame for having been born poor and not able to overcome poverty says more about you than it does about them. The fundamentals of low income families is a denial of choices and opportunities, a violation of human dignity. Lack of basic capacity to participate effectively in society. It means not having enough to feed and clothe a family, not having the funds a clinic to go to or dentist , not having the land on which to grow one's food or a job to earn one's living, not having access to credit. It means insecurity, powerlessness and exclusion of individuals, households and communities. It means susceptibility to violence, and it often implies living in marginal or fragile environments.
There are many studies done over a number of years to support all my statements. I don't make them lightly.
There will always be among us those who take advantage of whoever or whatever is vulnerable. The few poor who do take advantage of loopholes in social welfare are negligible to those wealthy fatcats who take advantage of and circumvent regulations which brought about not only the worst recession in the US, but global economic collapse. And yes, the Bush/Cheney years make them culpable for many of the problems we are still working to overcome to this day.
You presume to know what would or wouldn't "occur" to me? Being so presumptive means my comments are wasted on you, but they are not wasted.
You may continue to deny my words, I stand by this and every one of my comments and the words and stats in them. The research done by myself, by others, general economics, and America's economic history proves them true.
Comment: #8
Posted by: Steve
Tue Apr 24, 2012 9:25 AM
Mr. Gunn. My math is not faulty. Neither are my statements. If anything is faulty it is the conclusions you draw.
This country, ready to fight each other over their Christian values and abortion, yet place no value nor respects the dignity of the poor among us. Known otherwise to you as the 47%. This entire conversation is ludicrous. To throw and waste money in every other direction, yet the direction where money may benefit all people, not just the poor but all people is an argument started by the rich after the New Deal and now carried by every voice. Talk about trickle down economics. You would scream bloody hell if they attempted to take away your guns or the "charity" funding status of the NRA and marvel that others would protest cutting funding to the most needy among us.
I suppose if the poor could afford lobbyists such as the ILA, the lobbying org. of the NRA which is known as the most powerful lobbying organization in the country, then they'd have equal representation and a voice in policy decisions that directly affect their interests.
Any research on economics will show the rich have reaped huge benefits from the Reagan years and the Bush/Cheney years while the poor have been marginalized and ostracized, now relegated to sub-human status known as the 47% or "drain on our economy".
I will also state again, if you love the fetus, you can try, but you can't shun the child. When people are not allowed choices regarding contraception and abortion and morning after pills, many unwanted children are born to many economically disenfranchised women and families. The big secret is many unwanted children are also born and aborted to those in more economically favorable circumstances.
The "abstinence" and "personal responsibility" arguments have no merit. We are sexual beings. Abstinence only works for those with diminished sex drive. All economic levels fail in abstinence and personal responsibility. It's an argument tossed at the poor from those financially secure who also act irresponsibly and immorally, but feel their economic status allows them to demean the poor and economically deprived who dare have children or expect to be treated with the same dignity and consideration you'd give to anyone. We all bow before the monied among us, the poor we kick to the curb. Just because you can doesn't mean you should applies to rich and poor.
As long as they remain poor they are relegated to the back of the bus or the back door. They seem to know and accept that, but to make another feel shame for having been born poor and not able to overcome poverty says more about you than it does about them. The fundamentals of low income families is a denial of choices and opportunities, a violation of human dignity. Lack of basic capacity to participate effectively in society. It means not having enough to feed and clothe a family, not having the funds a clinic to go to or dentist , not having the land on which to grow one's food or a job to earn one's living, not having access to credit. It means insecurity, powerlessness and exclusion of individuals, households and communities. It means susceptibility to violence, and it often implies living in marginal or fragile environments.
There are many studies done over a number of years to support all my statements. I don't make them lightly.
There will always be among us those who take advantage of whoever or whatever is vulnerable. The few poor who do take advantage of loopholes in social welfare are negligible to those wealthy fatcats who take advantage of and circumvent regulations which brought about not only the worst recession in the US, but global economic collapse. And yes, the Bush/Cheney years make them culpable for many of the problems we are still working to overcome to this day.
You presume to know what would or wouldn't "occur" to me? Being so presumptive means my comments are wasted on you, but they are not wasted.
You may continue to deny my words, I stand by this and every one of my comments and the words and stats in them. The research done by myself, by others, general economics, and America's economic history proves them true.
Comment: #9
Posted by: Steve
Tue Apr 24, 2012 9:31 AM
Didn't mean to double post. Meant to post this. If it's fair taxes and politicians are manipulated to help the rich get richer and what they want, then it's fair they should pay a higher tax rate than those who pay taxes but don't pay income tax.
Comment: #10
Posted by: Steve
Tue Apr 24, 2012 9:42 AM
Now you're throwing abortion into an economics article. Abortion makes a lot of sense from an economics standpoint, but the real debate stems from the question "when does life begin?" The Bible says that life begins at conception. I'm not sure what the Quran says about it. If your religous text says life begins at conception, then you're either pro-life, or you're putting your politics before your faith. If you're a Christain and pro-choice, I'll argue to the death how you are wrong based on Biblical arguements. If you're a pagan, athiest, agnostic, or similar, then argueing against abortion becomes much harder.
Comment: #11
Posted by: Chris McCoy
Tue Apr 24, 2012 11:20 AM
Oh please. Here's just a few old testament guidelines that you pro life "Christians" routinely violate. Save your cherry picked Biblical arguments about conception and life for someone who has the stomach for the hypocrisy of it all.
You shall have no other gods before me.
You shall not make for yourself any carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them.
You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.
Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.
You shall not kill.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet

The new testament of Jesus testifies of a man none of you cherry pickers want to acknowledge. A man full of love and compassion and forgiveness who fed the poor and the hungry, healed the sick, paid taxes to Caeser, and a scathing rebuke to hypocrites. We all know how he ended up. At the very least, tortured and hung from a cross till he died. Strange fruit.
Comment: #12
Posted by: Steve
Tue Apr 24, 2012 12:47 PM
Every Christain messes up and fails to do many of those things, but perfection is not the goal. The important thing is that we acknowledge that certain things are wrong and repent. The Bible says that God knit us together in our mothers womb. That means babies in the womb are people. Now if you're not a Christain I'm not going to try to change your mind about this. You're free to think that as long as a baby is in the womb its garbage and can be treated as such. My only point in my last statement is that if you believe in the Bible and you're pro-choice, you should reconsider what the Bible has to say. Steve, its obvious you don't believe what I do, and I respect you too much to try to change your mind, but please don't attack my faith again and call me a cherry picker. I live my life according to the Word as best I can.
Comment: #13
Posted by: Chris McCoy
Tue Apr 24, 2012 4:57 PM
Re: david

What David said does not always apply to the "RICH". WHen my son was born I was denied WIC. I had just got promoted that same year. I was perfectly content with my previous pay and responsibility but wanted to progress to be provide my family with more income. If i had not got promoted I would have been elifdgable for WIC. If I had more kids I would have been elidgable for WIC. Government lesson: dont work hard and have lots of kids so that others have to hook you up.
Comment: #14
Posted by: SCOTT
Tue Apr 24, 2012 5:45 PM
Re: david

What David said does not always apply to the "RICH". WHen my son was born I was denied WIC. I had just got promoted that same year. I was perfectly content with my previous pay and responsibility but wanted to progress to be provide my family with more income. If i had not got promoted I would have been elifdgable for WIC. If I had more kids I would have been elidgable for WIC. Government lesson: dont work hard and have lots of kids so that others have to hook you up.
Comment: #15
Posted by: SCOTT
Tue Apr 24, 2012 5:47 PM
According to FFF.org, The United States was founded on the principles of individual freedom, free markets, private property, and limited government. As the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution reflect, individuals have the natural and God-given right to live their lives any way they choose, so long as their conduct is peaceful. It is the duty of government to protect, not destroy, these inherent and inalienable rights.
After reading most of the previous comments, I am not sure if anyone agrees with the previous paragraph.It appears there is a huge divide between the rich and poor, left and right, or conservative and liberals. This makes little sense to me.
Any regular reader of Professor Williams would realize that the great divide is between those who believe in liberty and freedom AND those who believe in power, where someone uses force to make people do things they wouldn't want to do on their own. Every increase in power is a decrease in liberty.
The ends do not justify the means.While I believe that most of us have good intentions, the use of force to accomplish ones desires comes at a huge price. And using force is what power is all about. See what happens if you don't go along with all the rules and regulations that monopolize our lives.
Comment: #16
Posted by: Martin
Wed Apr 25, 2012 9:54 AM
"Our kids fight your battles, you should pay more in taxes."

Nonsense. They are not fighting my battles because I have
no desire to slaughter poor people who live in foreign lands
or anywhere else. I have no desire to slaughter innocent humans
whose only "crime" is defending their homes, families, and country
from being bombed, invaded, and occupied by mass murderers.

-- Rick [Freedom_First (at) verizon (dot) net]
Comment: #17
Posted by: Rick
Wed Apr 25, 2012 12:19 PM
Re: Steve
Steve -- You claim to be a defender of the poor but seem to be
completely unaware of the fact that poor people in this country do not
benifit from from the slaughter of poor people who live in foreign
countries.
Likewise, poor people do not benifit from all the wars that are
currently being waged against them in this country such as the wars on
drug owners, the wars on gun owners, the wars against honest trade, etc.
In fact, it is gun control that allows the persecution of poor people in
this country and everywhere else. Gun control has allowed the
authorities in the U.S. to imprison millions of innocent poor people.
Gun control has allowed drug fighters, gun grabbers, and other
prohibitionist thugs to transform the former 'land of the free' into the
world's leading police-prison state with the highest rate of
incarceration on the planet. If the young and poor in this country had
the means to defend themselves from drug fighters, gun grabbers, and
other freedom-violating, violent thugs, the authorities would not be
able to heard millions of them into their prisons. It would be like the
police in National Socialist Germany trying to arrest millions of armed
Jews. If the victims had the means (guns) to defend themselves, the
authorities would not even attempt to commit these crimes.
Likewise, if taxes were voluntary, mass slaughter would end because the
neocon war mongers would not be able to pay for their wars. Ask yourself
if you would voluntarily donate thousands of dollars of your own money
to those criminals in order to finance all their wars against human
beings who have never harmed you or threatened you or attacked your
country.
Likewise, the tons of regulations that restrict honest trade and
production are most harmful to the poor. They prevent the poor from
competeing in the market place. The poor cannot afford all these
licenses, fees, permits, mandates, and lawyers to wade through all the
red tape.
Comment: #18
Posted by: Rick
Wed Apr 25, 2012 1:58 PM
Rick you have many good common sense, well thought out ideas. You should post more often.
Comment: #19
Posted by: Chris McCoy
Wed Apr 25, 2012 5:30 PM
Rick you have many good common sense, well thought out ideas. You should post more often.
Comment: #20
Posted by: Chris McCoy
Wed Apr 25, 2012 5:31 PM
Re: Chris McCoy
Thanks Chris -- The good news is that the idea of individual
liberty and personal responsibility is growing.
Comment: #21
Posted by: Rick
Wed Apr 25, 2012 11:30 PM
Re: Steve

You sure did use a lot of words to completely ignore what I asked.

I said nothing about abortion, Christianity, or any of the other red herrings you flung up in that great cloud.

Again, what gives 47% of the population a claim on the property of the other 53%? According to you, those in the fomer group are "owed" money taken from those in the latter by the government. Under what legal authority?
Comment: #22
Posted by: Jeff Gunn
Wed Apr 25, 2012 11:50 PM
I will have to think long and hard about Dr. Willams' argument that future generations are not involved in today's deficits.

I understand that real wealth (as opposed to numbers of some unit of currency) is actual STUFF, like the bombs, bullets, planes, and tanks of World War II, so I can see part of his point. But it is common for current consumption to be paid for in the future; just think of your credit card bill, or how you live in your home now but will be paying for it for years to come. The production during WWII was consumed during WWII, but the cost of WWII was paid for many years after. If the government uses its current deficits as the excuse for future taxation "even unto the third generation", how does this not mean future generations will not be paying by reduced standard of living?
Comment: #23
Posted by: Phillip Schearer
Thu Apr 26, 2012 1:28 PM
I'm not a defender of the poor, just an old man who has closely followed religion, politics, and the financial tricks and the duping of the masses by the wealthy and powerful for many years. I now volunteer a little time with poor and indigent families noting they don't have a voice and they do feel discrimination in many forms. My research and stats go back many years, and sometimes will copy and paste the research of others. Unless I misread your post, we seem to be in agreement in many areas.
Mr. Gunn, I answered the question posed by Mr. Williams in my own way, in my own words. Not to answer your questions, not to satisfy you. I write on this forum to please myself and contribute what I want, when I want. Don't like my answer(s), read another.
Mr. McCoy, it was you who played the religion card, I did not. You may not like my answer, it is my answer. It infuriates me when people cherry pick holy books as "support" to whatever they are for/against as much as it seems to insult you to hear the term. I'm no stranger to the many ways the biblical, or Quran, "truth" is twisted to suit whoever is using it for their own purpose. As you say, unless you're speaking to someone who interprets it as you do, there's no conversation.
Comment: #24
Posted by: Steve
Thu Apr 26, 2012 5:29 PM
Re: Rick

I am have been deployed three times because stupid Americans still think they have to choose between Democrats (MARXIST SOCIALISTS) and Republicans (NATIONAL SOCIALISTS). If Romney does not make some kind of effort to either return to the constitution or adopt a rational foreign policy I will take my vote to Gary Johnson. Also, my monthly campaign donations I have been giving to Ron Paul will go there as well.
Comment: #25
Posted by: SCOTT
Thu Apr 26, 2012 8:26 PM
Steve you completed misunderstood my point. I'm not going to use the Bible to support my arguements unless you believe in the Bible. You clearly do not so I will not use those arguements on you, but I will my fellow Christians. Thats all I was trying to say and you completly took it and re-wrote it.
Comment: #26
Posted by: Chris McCoy
Fri Apr 27, 2012 9:13 AM
Mr. McCoy, I have no quarrel with you. Peace.
Comment: #27
Posted by: Steve
Fri Apr 27, 2012 3:59 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Walter E. Williams
Nov. `14
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
26 27 28 29 30 31 1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 1 2 3 4 5 6
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 24 Nov 2014
Deb Saunders
Debra J. SaundersUpdated 23 Nov 2014
Steve Chapman
Steve ChapmanUpdated 23 Nov 2014

25 Dec 2013 Dumb Politicians Won't Get Elected

26 Oct 2011 Profits Are for People

27 Jul 2011 Job Destruction Makes Us Richer